2003-06-12_REVISION - M1999034 (2)

Home Browse Search

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OVER OBJECTIONS -Application for Amendment No.l, Aggregate Industries- WCR, Inc., Cooley Reservoir and Fulton Wildlife Area, Permit No. M-1999-034 INTRODUCTION On February 12, 2003, Aggregate Industries-WCR, Ina (AI) filed an application for Amendment No.l to the Cooley Reservoir and Fulton Wildlife Area, Permit No. M-1999-034. The fmal day for public comment was Apri14, 2003. Three timely letters of objection were received. One objector withdrew the objection. APre-Hearing Conference was conducted by Ms Sandm Brown on May 27, 2003. One of the remaining two objectors did not attend the conference. One objector Ms Karen Topper did attend the conference. A draft Pre-Hearing Order was prepared and issued to the Boazd, on May 3Q, 2003. The draft order identified the parties to the Hearing and listed the issues to be considered by the Board. The Division sent an adequacy review of the application to AI's consultant Robert Fleming ADCO Consulting, Inc. on Apri129,2003. The original decision due date was May 13, 2003. Aggregate Industries requested that the Division's consideration be continued to June 12, 2003 to give them more time to respond to the list of adequacy items. A second adequacy review letter with a few remaining adequacy items was sent to AI on June 11, and AI responded June 12, 2003, agreeing to a Division condifion for approval of the application. Several of Ms Toppers issues had not been resolved at the time of the Pre-Hearing Conference. Those issues are listed below followed by the Division's rationale for recommending approval over the objection. 1. Is the application accurate and consistent regarding the description of the topsoil stockpiles? (Rule 1.4.4(3)) Ms Topper noted that in one location the application read that overburden and topsoil stockpiles will be 30 feet high and in another location it read that the overburden and topsoil stockpiles will be 20 feet in height. The applicant has clarified the application and states "We will prohibit stockpiles within 200' of 104'" Avenue and make the maximum height of stockpiles to be 20 feet. 2. Will the applicant comply with applicable water laws and regulations governing injury to existing water Rights specifically a potential for lowering of the water table? (Rule 3.1.6(1)(a)) The Office of the State Engineer -Division of Water Resources reviewed the application and, as a condition of Approval, stated "Prior to approving a well permit, the applicant must conduct a field inspection of the site and document [he locations of all wells within 600 feet of the permit area. The applicant must then obtain a waiver of objection from all well owners with wells within 600 feet of the permit area or request a hearing before the State Engineer. Aggregate Industries has agreed, in [he application, that no de-watering will occur until an agreement has been reached with the owner of any well within 600 Feet or the State Engineer's Office approves partial de-watering and the Division of Minerals and Geology reviews and approves of any such agreement or approval. Aggregate Industries has agreed to limit de-watering to a maximum depth of IS feet. 3. Has the applicant submitted a statement or plan showing how de-watering operations will be managed to Protect against pollution, specifically remobilization of DIMP (diisopropylmethylphosphonate)? (Rule 6.4.7(2)(c ) The operator has agreed to a condition for approval of [he application (see "Recommendation for Approval With a Condition"). The first sentence reads "No de-watering or extraction activities will occur until AI develops a plan to monitor the gravel pit pond water for diisopropylmethylphosphonate (DIMP) and obtain